"Twenty-one states do not have laws compelling their electors to vote for a pledged candidate.[5] Twenty-nine states plus the District of Columbia have laws to penalize faithless electors, although these have never been enforced.[2] In lieu of penalizing a faithless elector, some states, such as Michigan and Minnesota, specify the faithless elector's vote is void,[6] though no state has yet had cause to enforce such a provision.[citation needed]

Until 2008, Minnesota's electors cast secret ballots. Although the final count would reveal the occurrence of faithless votes (except in the unlikely case of two or more changes canceling out), it was impossible to determine which elector(s) were faithless. After an unknown elector was faithless in 2004, Minnesota amended its law to require public balloting of the electors' votes and invalidate any vote cast for someone other than the candidate to whom the elector was pledged.[7] After an elector has voted, their vote can be changed only in states such as Michigan and Minnesota, which invalidate votes other than those pledged. In the twenty-nine states with laws against faithless electors, a faithless elector may only be punished after they vote." - Wikipedia

Last edited by NoCoPilot on Mon Dec 05, 2016 6:01 pm; edited 1 time in total

It doesn't matter what the state laws say. The federal law is the constitution, and - as far as I know - there is nothing there that compels electors to vote anything other than their conscience. In California, it an elector votes against the winner-takes-all law, he is subject to a $1,000 fine. Big fucking deal.

Lessig makes it sound as though SCOTUS made a rational decision in Bush v Gore. Anyone who has read the decision can see the painful manipulation of the thinking process that they used to rationalize the decision they had obviously decided on before hearing the case.

I understand that equal protection was tossed out as a reason to stop the count, but that was bullshit.

You should read the decision and see how warped the foundation of the decision was.

One of the primary justifications for the decision was that there was not equal treatment being given to those voters whose ballots showed votes for both presidential candidates (I believe there were around 100,000 such ballots). The recount was trying to discern the intent of those ballots which showed no vote because of the mechanical problems of the ballot design. The court ruled that unless the recount was also able to discern the intent of those who voted for both candidates, then there was not equal protection and the recount was invalid.

Of course, we all realize that if the idiot voter punched both selections, there was no way to tell what the voter's intent was. But that is the rationalization the court used to stop the count. Under that ruling, no recount could ever be valid.

But the equal protection argument is actually sensible when it comes to the allocation of electors. And since the court has acknowledged that the equal protection clause can be applied, shouldn't it therefore be applied in this case?

“It is my firm belief that the EAC has outlived its usefulness and purpose,” said Committee chair Gregg Harper (R-MS), explaining why his bill transfers the EAC’s authority to the Federal Election Commission.

Hard to argue with this. Fair elections are a thing of the past, and elections of any kind are not guaranteed with this future.

What about the three million who cast fraudulent votes for Crooked Hillary, thus costing The Donald the popular vote?

I understand Trump is about to sign an executive order authorizing a commission to investigate voter fraud and voter suppression, to find out how Hillary cheated her way to winning the popular vote. I wish this was a joke.

The Russian manipulation becomes clearer. Remember that Republican system that numerous states now participate in, the one that attempts to find people who are registered in more than one state and block them from voting illegally? It is widely criticized for getting a lot of false positives, because it matches on name but isn't too good with taking note of middle initials. And now this.

US Officials Just Arrested The NSA Contractor Who Leaked Today’s Russia Hacking Bombshell

Quote :

Re NSA piece: Russians could knock 1000s off of registration w/ program changing middle-initial of select demo of ppl in "voter ID" states.